Why did God make Different Aged Rocks

BananaSlug · Jul 12, 2010

AV1611VET said:
God would be deceptive, or the bread -- interpreted in line with how bread should arrive (i.e. fresh) -- would be deceptive?

Staling, or "going stale" is a chemical and physical process in bread and other foods that reduces their palatability. Stale bread is dry and leathery.
Staling is not, as is commonly believed, simply a drying-out process due to evaporation. Bread will stale even in a moist environment, and stales most rapidly at temperatures just above freezing. (McGee 2004, p. 310) Bread stored in the refrigerator will have increased staling rates and should therefore be kept at room temperature.
Although the precise mechanism of staling is still unknown, one important mechanism appears to be migration of moisture from the starch granules into the interstitial spaces, degelatinizing the starch.
Staling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Staling is a process that occurs over a period of time. If God created a loaf of stale bread ex nihilo, then it would show a history. God would be deceiving.

sandwiches · Jul 12, 2010

AV1611VET said:
So would a fresh loaf of bread as well.

OK. So, both would show history.

Doveaman said:
Embedded age implies the presence of embedded time.

Age is discerned through the signs of a history. Thus, if we can determine the age of something, it's because we can determine its history to some degree.

AV1611VET said:
God would be deceptive, or the bread -- interpreted in line with how bread should arrive (i.e. fresh) -- would be deceptive?

Not how it 'should' arrive bu how it 'does' in fact come out of the oven.

AV1611VET · Jul 12, 2010

pgp_protector said:
God could only Deceive people if he was a Deceiver.

Who is deceived?

AV1611VET · Jul 12, 2010

BananaSlug said:
Staling is a process that occurs over a period of time. If God created a loaf of stale bread ex nihilo, then it would show a history.

Staling would show a history -- stale wouldn't have to.

As [was it?] you pointed out, even fresh bread would demand a history behind it.

Is there anything in existence that can be in existence without a history behind it?

If the answer is NO, then creatio ex nihilo should be the culprit -- not the object created.

And if, in the beginning, there was nothing, then creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex deo are the only two ways I can think of to start the universe off.

BananaSlug said:
God would be deceiving.

Can God create a loaf of fresh bread without incurring the same accusation?

AV1611VET · Jul 12, 2010

sandwiches said:
Age is discerned through the signs of a history.

In this dispensation, yes; but not in the first dispensation, which started out with even time not existing.

BananaSlug · Jul 12, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Staling would show a history -- stale wouldn't have to.

Yes it would.

As [was it?] you pointed out, even fresh bread would demand a history behind it.

Of course, where was the wheat grown, what type of yeast/bacteria was used, was it baked in an electric or gas oven, etc.

Is there anything in existence that can be in existence without a history behind it?

If it popped into existence brand spanking new with absolutely no age. If every rock on the earth was no older than 6100 years. If every visible star was only ~6100 light-years away.

If a loaf of bread appeared with absolutely no trace of yeast, no chemical traces of where the wheat came from, or any other evidence that it had actually been grown, kneaded, and baked, then that would suffice. A loaf of bread with zero age.

If the answer is NO, then creatio ex nihilo should be the culprit -- not the object created.

If an object was created ex nihilo with age, then it is the one who created it with apparent age.

And if, in the beginning, there was nothing, then creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex deo are the only two ways I can think of to start the universe off.

You are assuming there was nothing in the beginning.

Can God create a loaf of fresh bread without incurring the same accusation?

See above.

AV1611VET · Jul 12, 2010

BananaSlug said:
See above.

I honestly don't think you understand what happened in Genesis 1:1, BS; and I don't think I can answer your questions to your satisfaction.

BananaSlug · Jul 12, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I honestly don't think you understand what happened in Genesis 1:1, BS; and I don't think I can answer your questions to your satisfaction.

What, that God spoke the universe into existence roughly 6000 years ago? What is so hard to understand about that. The question is why would God "embed" 13.5 billion years of age into the entire universe if he created it 6000 years ago.

Why is it necessary for the universe to be 13.5 billion years old and the earth to be 4.5 billion years old? You claim it is because the earth needs to be "mature", yet you give no explanation as to what a "mature" earth is. Why can't the earth be "mature" at 6000 years?

If the oldest rock on earth was only 6000 years old and every observation showed the universe to be only 6000 years old, every atheist here would be a Christian.

You cling to "embedded age" as if it is some sort of mental wall against anything you deem dangerous to your ideology. Not only do we find rocks that are 4.5 billion years old and <6000 years old, we find ages in between. We also find evidence of ancient volcanic eruptions, fertile swamplands, and other scars that are also "embedded" in rock. This is like God creating a "mature" oak tree ex nihilo with 150 years of tree rings complete with scars from fires, cold spells, and droughts.

Everything we see in the geologic record goes against what we read in the Bible. I find it funny that God created us to be rational thinking beings, with an innate curiosity to explore the world around us, yet created everything in a way that seems to contradict his book.

I was raised for 23 years of my life learning about God's creation in Genesis 1. I still find it amusing that people assume I don't know anything about it.

AV1611VET · Jul 12, 2010

BananaSlug said:
Why is it necessary for the universe to be 13.5 billion years old and the earth to be 4.5 billion years old? You claim it is because the earth needs to be "mature", yet you give no explanation as to what a "mature" earth is. Why can't the earth be "mature" at 6000 years?

I've already explained that one explanation is "variety".

Just like Adam and Eve were different ages, the rocks were different ages.

Imagine this universe with everything @ the same age.

I don't think it would work.

Lu 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

BananaSlug · Jul 12, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I've already explained that one explanation is "variety".

What is point of the variety in having granite of different ages? It's just rock. Why does rock need the variety of different ages?

Just like Adam and Eve were different ages, the rocks were different ages.

Adam was a few hours older than Eve because he was created first. Unless you are implying that God created Adam "older" than Eve.

Having rocks of different ages, especially igneous rock, implies the passing of time and history. Saying it was for "variety" does not take away the fact it shows history.

Imagine this universe with everything @ the same age.

I don't think it would work.

Why? Are you saying God couldn't make it work? Why is it the people who claim to know God are always putting limits on what he can do?

Lu 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

What does a parable about fasting have to do with the age of the earth? Oh yeah, now I remember:

Slug's 2nd Law of YECism- Any other verses can be interpreted liberally to support the 1st Law.

sandwiches · Jul 12, 2010

AV1611VET said:
In this dispensation, yes; but not in the first dispensation, which started out with even time not existing.

Whether time existed or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that if we can discern any age in rocks and fossils created during the creation, then what we're actually quantifying is the object's apparent or actual history.

At any rate, I'd like to know what reasoning does this 'maturity without history' validate for you? Why the insistence that objects 'embedded with maturity' during creation do not have a history?

BananaSlug · Jul 12, 2010

sandwiches said:
Whether time existed or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that if we can discern any age in rocks and fossils created during the creation, then what we're actually quantifying is the object's apparent or actual history.

At any rate, I'd like to know what reasoning does this 'maturity without history' validate for you? Why the insistence that objects 'embedded with maturity' during creation do not have a history?

Simply because there is no history past ~6000 years. AV believes the universe was created in 4004 B.C. Any rock older than 4004 B.C. was created to be that old. For AV to believe in any historical event older than ~6000 years would go against his interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, "embedded age" aka, "age without history".

AV1611VET · Jul 12, 2010

sandwiches said:
Whether time existed or not is irrelevant.

Um ... it's very relevant.

[The lack of] time is what falsifies the idea that Adam had a past.

It is also what falsifies the idea that the earth had a history.

sandwiches said:
The fact remains that if we can discern any age in rocks and fossils created during the creation, then what we're actually quantifying is the object's apparent or actual history.

You can't -- there were no fossils created during the creation.

sandwiches said:
At any rate, I'd like to know what reasoning does this 'maturity without history' validate for you?

Embedded Age Creation.

sandwiches said:
Why the insistence that objects 'embedded with maturity' during creation do not have a history?

If they had a history, they would be omphalos.

omphalos = maturity with history
embedded age = maturity without history

AV1611VET · Jul 12, 2010

BananaSlug said:
Therefore, "embedded age" aka, "age without history".

Try "maturity without history".

BananaSlug · Jul 12, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Try "maturity without history".

What is your definition of "maturity"?

sandwiches · Jul 12, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Um ... it's very relevant.

[The lack of] time is what falsifies the idea that Adam had a past.

No one said anything about Adam having a past. What we're arguing is that with the maturity, comes history.

I'll ask for the third time:
What are the minimum changes a newborn must go through to be able to speak and walk?

Skaloop · Jul 12, 2010

AV1611VET said:
You can't -- there were no fossils created during the creation.

But the rock in which fossils are currently found was created during that week, correct? Created with embedded age to show a maturity of billions of years?

How did the fossils get into these rocks if they weren't created there?

AV1611VET · Jul 12, 2010

Skaloop said:
But the rock in which fossils are currently found was created during that week, correct?

I suppose so.

Skaloop said:
Created with embedded age to show a maturity of billions of years?

I'm leery of statements like this -- especially when people are just dying to accuse God of being deceitful.

I don't know why those billions of years were put in there.

God, in His omniscience, did what He did, and I can't answer for Him here.

Skaloop said:
How did the fossils get into these rocks if they weren't created there?

I don't know, that's not my area of expertise -- and has nothing to do with the creation week -- (or this thread).

Skaloop · Jul 12, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I'm leery of statements like this -- especially when people are just dying to accuse God of being deceitful.

Sorry, not trying to be tricky here. Rather than 'to show' I should have said "that shows", no intent was intended.

I don't know why those billions of years were put in there.

God, in His omniscience, did what He did, and I can't answer for Him here.

Wasn't looking for a reason, just making sure I'm clear (as can be) on the issue.

I don't know, that's not my area of expertise -- and has nothing to do with the creation week -- (or this thread).

Too bad. An explanation would be nice.

Spacewyrm · Jul 13, 2010

AV1611VET said:
If they had a history, they would be omphalos.

omphalos = maturity with history

embedded age = maturity without history

Actually, this is not true. Omphalos is also maturity without history.

Why did God make Different Aged Rocks

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Life is an experiment, experience it!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Life is an experiment, experience it!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Life is an experiment, experience it!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

cognitive dissident

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency